D.C statehood vote

[pbarosso]

13 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

It's not going to happen because the constitution would have to be changed and that is not going to happen.  Taxation without representation is not the issue, though I suppose uneducated people would think it is.

dont you think the democrats are going to try and declare the constitution null and void soon?

i do. its all about controlling the MOB. ancient ROME had lots of accounts of similar actions.

[Autochthon1990]

3 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

dont you think the democrats are going to try and declare the constitution null and void soon?

i do. its all about controlling the MOB. ancient ROME had lots of accounts of similar actions.

Dude, how much Info Wars do you watch?

[+Desertrat56]

1 minute ago, pbarosso said:

dont you think the democrats are going to try and declare the constitution null and void soon?

i do. its all about controlling the MOB. ancient ROME had lots of accounts of similar actions.

No, and I think you are not thinking clearly.  Why do people have to always drink the koolaide of two parties means us vs them?  The democrats as a whole are no different than the republicans.  They have different agendas but we have more democrats that are concerned for our country as a whole than that are screaming for their special agenda.  You need to turn the television off or watch a different network for news if you can't give it up.  Get some balance in your life and your thinking.  No elected official wants to destroy the constitution, how do you think they got elected.  Polarization is a tool used to keep people emotional and off balance so they are more easily manipulated.  Get a grip, take a breathe and a break from politics, it is obviously upsetting you too much, as it is me. 

[bison]

It would not be necessary to change the Constitution. The size of the District of Columbia has been reduced before. It could be again, so as to allow the bulk of the city of Washington to become a state.

[CrimsonKing]

23 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Speaking Cynically, yes, because that would get a lot of people thinking 'democrats aren't so bad after all'

Not a chance in hell 

Neither party is that friendly,nor should they be...best to leave it the way it was designed.

[rashore]

37 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

It's not going to happen because the constitution would have to be changed and that is not going to happen.  Taxation without representation is not the issue, though I suppose uneducated people would think it is.

I think taxation without representation is part of the issue- for the residents that live in D.C. and want representation. Part of the desire for statehood on their behalf. There are some folks that would be ok with just getting representation, some want to go full statehood with it.

With the requirements of a change to the Constitution to make the area allowable to become a state, it's not likely that an amendment will be passed by both sides of Congress and also get ratified by the states. Or at least not at this time. I'm not sure, but I don't think a statehood clause could be attached to the dismissal of the Federal District clause. There is a separate process for how a non-state becomes a state that does not require a change to the Constitution, but does require some other hoops of getting Congress to agree, and the President to sign off on it. The prospective state has to jump through a lot of voting, legislation items like crafting a state constitution and other documents too. Puerto Rico is a good example here. 

Puerto Rico is having another vote in this Novembers elections to request submittal for statehood. The last few were a bit torn between being a territory or state, or other like just be independent, and one questionable turnout last time. Now the ballot is just flat out asking for statehood or not, so if it passed, it would be a formal declaration to the U.S. to apply for statehood. If it gets approved by congress, PR would need to draft up documents to submit to the U.S., get approved, and then the President can sign off on and announce statehood. And even if all of PR said yes to statehood- Congress can still say nope if they want to, there isn't any laws requiring the U.S. to accept a statehood request. 

A bit of humor ETA... I think the real reason they don't want 2 more seats because they don't want to remodel the whole friggin chamber just to add in 2 more seats! It would throw the whole balance of the room off 

[spartan max2]

I can't quite remember but wasen't there a proposal a few years ago to split California in two or something ?

[Tatetopa]

4 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I can't quite remember but wasen't there a proposal a few years ago to split California in two or something ?

Texas admission to the union allowed for up to five new states to be formed out of the territory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_divisionism

Article IV, Section 3, of The United States Constitution expressly prohibits any other state from dividing up and forming smaller states without Congressional approval. The relevant clause says "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress".^[2]

The Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States, approved by Congress on March 1, 1845, states that "New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution".^[1]

Proponents of creating new states argue that the resolution of 1845, a bill which passed both houses of Congress, stands as Congressional "pre-approval" under the terms of the Constitution for formation of such new states. Opponents argue that Constitution require future Congressional approval of any new states that are proposed to be formed from what is now the state of Texas.

Some constitutional scholars argue that any special "right" of Texas to create new states was ended by the secession of Texas in 1861, to join the Confederacy, and its subsequent, formal, readmission to the United States of America in 1865.^{[citation needed]} Complicating this argument is an 1869 United States Supreme Court ruling, Texas v. White, holding that Texas remained part of the United States even during the Civil War.

[rashore]

29 minutes ago, bison said:

It would not be necessary to change the Constitution. The size of the District of Columbia has been reduced before. It could be again, so as to allow the bulk of the city of Washington to become a state.

Interesting you say that, what would you propose as the area for that?

It would need revising, but there is an act for that: 

District of Columbia Home Rule Act

 

(Amended through November 19, 1997)

 

Public Law 93-198; 87 Stat. 777; D.C. Code § 1-201 passim 
Approved December 24, 1973   http://www.abfa.com/ogc/hract.htm?fbclid=IwAR0LotDjuR_IQr4oacnT_h94yxjZR0-ymQIJKz7R5XUfWJkIBwOEi8Lx2wo  

[+Desertrat56]

17 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I can't quite remember but wasen't there a proposal a few years ago to split California in two or something ?

I think I remember it coming up a few years ago, and the history is that California was going to be two states for some reason but it ended up being one.

[Jarocal]

52 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Dude, how much Info Wars do you watch?

Not much but is as amusing as the Ancient Aliens show sans cinematic views of impressive masonry structures and unique artifacts from various cultures. 

Maybe I should stream info wars audio while watching the Ancient Aliens video. Nah, the incredulity on the part of the theorists being interviewed is amusing too.

[rashore]

26 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I can't quite remember but wasn't there a proposal a few years ago to split California in two or something ?

Lol, there's been a half dozen proposals in just the last 20 years for various splittings. 

And a lot of other proposed states over the last couple hundred years. Utah had one for a while, a chunk of Illinois, a couple around Texas way. Pretty sure Florida had a couple too. It's been a while since I've last puttered around the strange that is making states and successions in the U.S.. I should get back into it, it's a strange slice of the nation in many ways. 

[pbarosso]

46 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

No, and I think you are not thinking clearly.  Why do people have to always drink the koolaide of two parties means us vs them?  The democrats as a whole are no different than the republicans.  They have different agendas but we have more democrats that are concerned for our country as a whole than that are screaming for their special agenda.  You need to turn the television off or watch a different network for news if you can't give it up.  Get some balance in your life and your thinking.  No elected official wants to destroy the constitution, how do you think they got elected.  Polarization is a tool used to keep people emotional and off balance so they are more easily manipulated.  Get a grip, take a breathe and a break from politics, it is obviously upsetting you too much, as it is me. 

omg i just spent 15 minutes typing a well thought out response and it did some back page thing and it disappeared. 

in short: we have a two party system. there is no alternative right now. there probably wont ever be a better system than the one we have right now unless you can somehow apply some science fiction gene editing, control peoples minds, or some other 1984 stuff. in the end people are people. this is what we get for being "free", the freedom to be educated and successful, to try hard and enjoy our fruits, or to fail at life. these things are choices. with that comes the opportunity to be manipulated. the "smartest" people i know on my moms side (bay area people and silicon valley types with nothing less than a masters degree) all fall into the folly that they are therefore superior thinkers, but they get their information from the same place we all do, and apply their POV which had been carelessly un-cultivated since their births. I say that because they did not teach their kids to be skeptics. so they fall hook line and sinker for CNN or what their far left professors and friends told them to think. i sat and watched it happen over 30 years. this is the left. technocratic, information manipulating, flip flopping fools who think they know everything. 

 

but the left either lives in glass towers OR in straw huts. both dont realize what they are doing. You have to pick a side at this point. if you dont you are part of the problem. maybe you could get a better perspective if you climbed to a higher elevation to look at everything. be realistic.

[aztek]

20 hours ago, bison said:

I wonder how any one of us, who happens to be an American citizen, living in any of the 50 states,  would feel if they were told that they were to have no Senator representing them, and only a single representative in the House, regardless of population. Further,  that that representative could not participate in floor votes, but would be confined to lesser, committee and procedural votes only. I for one would resent it as an injustice.

that is ridiculously funny,  you should mention representation, what has it done for regular people in last 30-40 years???? not a damn thing, wake up, no one represents you in real world,  but they sure want you to believe they do. 

Edited June 26, 2020 by aztek

[+Desertrat56]

11 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

omg i just spent 15 minutes typing a well thought out response and it did some back page thing and it disappeared. 

in short: we have a two party system. there is no alternative right now. there probably wont ever be a better system than the one we have right now unless you can somehow apply some science fiction gene editing, control peoples minds, or some other 1984 stuff. in the end people are people. this is what we get for being "free", the freedom to be educated and successful, to try hard and enjoy our fruits, or to fail at life. these things are choices. with that comes the opportunity to be manipulated. the "smartest" people i know on my moms side (bay area people and silicon valley types with nothing less than a masters degree) all fall into the folly that they are therefore superior thinkers, but they get their information from the same place we all do, and apply their POV which had been carelessly un-cultivated since their births. I say that because they did not teach their kids to be skeptics. so they fall hook line and sinker for CNN or what their far left professors and friends told them to think. i sat and watched it happen over 30 years. this is the left. technocratic, information manipulating, flip flopping fools who think they know everything. 

 

but the left either lives in glass towers OR in straw huts. both dont realize what they are doing. You have to pick a side at this point. if you dont you are part of the problem. maybe you could get a better perspective if you climbed to a higher elevation to look at everything. be realistic.

You are too polarized to get what I am saying.  Don't try to convince me of anything, I will not try to convince you of anything, though I did just accuse you of being polarized.  My view is that the problems we have are caused by the two parties, not that two parties are wrong but that the two parties have power they should not have to shut independents and 3rd parties out.  It is not the best system we can have, but you have your opinion and I have mine. 

[bison]

2 hours ago, rashore said:

Interesting you say that, what would you propose as the area for that?

It would need revising, but there is an act for that: 

District of Columbia Home Rule Act

 

(Amended through November 19, 1997)

 

Public Law 93-198; 87 Stat. 777; D.C. Code § 1-201 passim 
Approved December 24, 1973   http://www.abfa.com/ogc/hract.htm?fbclid=IwAR0LotDjuR_IQr4oacnT_h94yxjZR0-ymQIJKz7R5XUfWJkIBwOEi8Lx2wo  

Any area  witihin the city of Washington, or the old DC boundaries,  not utilized or required for the administration of the Federal government could form the new state. No doubt the people who live there would be knowledgeable about which areas these are. The idea of minimizing the size of the District of Columbia so the residents of the city could have full Congressional representation, as a state, has been talked over for quite some time. The link, below, explains the proposed new boundaries of a smaller Federal District, within the much larger context of the commercial and residential areas of Washington .

http://www.dcstatehoodcoalition.org/why-and-how-of-the-51st-state/ 

Edited June 26, 2020 by bison